ArticleBMC ophthalmology2025
Virtual reality stimulation for neuroprotection and neuroenhancement of vision in optic neuropathy patients: a prospective clinical trial.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07071129 (Virtual Reality for Enhancement of Vision), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Virtual Reality for Enhancement of Vision
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of virtual reality (VR) visual stimulation on neuroprotection and neuroenhancement in optic neuropathy patients.
methodsOpen-label, prospective, phase I clinical trial, enrolling 21 participants with glaucoma, plus 1 patient with ischemic optic neuropathy after hydrocephalus. Participants received commercially available VR headsets (HTC Vive or Oculus Rift) for home use loaded with a study-specific visual stimulus program. The VR visual stimulation protocol consisted of up to 1-hour daily sessions, 5 days per week, for 12-week cycles repeatable for up to 24 months. Safety was assessed through adverse event monitoring, and compliance was assessed through self-report. Testing of function (visual acuity and visual field) and structure (optical coherence tomography (OCT) for retinal nerve fiber layer (RNFL) and ganglion cell complex (GCC) thickness) were measured at baseline and follow-up.
resultsVR-based visual stimulation was safe and well tolerated across the 22-patient cohort. Mean baseline intraocular pressure (IOP) was 12.06 ± 0.76 mmHg and there was no significant change in IOP at follow-up. 8 of 22 patients were sufficiently compliant with use to analyze for efficacy measures. Analysis of Humphrey visual field (HVF) mean deviation (MD) of individual patients revealed that two eyes of two patients showed improvement and seven eyes of five patients showed worsening during the study duration. One patient using Goldmann visual fields (GVF) demonstrated improvement in sensitivity in both eyes. There were no statistically significant changes in visual acuity, HVF MD, GCC thickness, or RNFL thickness across the full patient population. Two illustrative cases were selected to demonstrate the potential therapeutic effects of VR visual stimulation.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that VR-based visual stimulation is safe, well-tolerated, and may provide functional benefits in selected patients. Additional studies are warranted to further investigate this therapeutic approach.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, TRN: NCT07071129, Registration date: 9 July 2025, retrospectively registered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.